u/Thisisnotanexit, since Soul is now formally requesting interaction ban, I'm in general agreement as long as specifics are clearly defined, and so I will not ping him and will address my comments to you.

1. If nobody initiates the convening of the Reputation Campaign, then task 3 can be closed out as unnecessary. I would presume that Soul not publicly regard the Reputation Campaign as defunct since that's a forum that I mod and comments about it would be considered comments that reflect on me and the other mods. So I'll cover that in the details below.

As I said, all my contribs to Soul's forums (including those to the forums of an earlier account of his) were presented in good faith and with consideration of the rules as then stated; for instance, the first questions I asked in his new forum came before his "no apologetics or proselytizing" rule was stated. Most people regard the sharing of sincere questions as a means of growth rather than "endless religious arguments", and Soul himself used the technique of sincere questions when I first contributed there.

I am ok if Christians use the forums in a respectful manner and engage in reciprocal dialogue. With the Bible Oddities forum, I thought it was clear enough that the forum was not geared towards Christians initiating posts. Swamp tested the boundaries and posted anti Christian content, so I clarified. The rule on there is for Christians not to initiate a post. They are welcome to comment on a post providing they follow the other rules.

When I commented on a BibleOddities post with only a positive link, I was banned at moderator discretion for "griefing" the mod, so that showed me that Soul was not really thinking through his claim that Christians are welcome to comment providing they follow other rules. Since mod discretion is a rule, I pointed out that effectively means there are no rules because any rationalization in the mod's mind is treated as a new rule. I'm hopeful Soul realizes this in time after being shown it a few different ways, as it helps the forward progress he seeks.

The issue is that Swamp violated the rules that were in place, and engaged in what I view as griefing and harassing behavior as a result of his inability to live with the consequences of his behavior.

Like the above, on this issue I am solely responding to his statements about me for context, as I've stated I reserve the right to do. If we bypass the question of judging his own forums and stick to judging this one, that can be handled in the details of the voluntary interaction ban.

I view him as attempting to slander me with this post he made, and having attempted to manipulate me as a kind of punishment for having and enforcing healthy boundaries.

2. That's part of your judgment (TINAE) on the two of us, so I'm happy to discuss anything about that if specifics are presented.

If you find the comments about Swamps actions under the Ranger164 account, Swamp admits to circumventing a past ban I placed on him in another forum I modded, with intent to do what I view as harass me. Back then, I felt that Swamp was targeting me for harassment and trying to manipulate me. I view his actions as violating the requirements to remain in good standing on the platform and would like it addressed and action taken about it if deemed he was in violation to the requirements to remain in good standing on the platform.

That's a question for admin so perhaps neither you nor I should be involved in Soul's prosecution of that question.

I had told Swamp to stay off of the forums I mod and that I was willing to converse with him when I deemed he is capable of having a conversation.

That's not in evidence; what he told me five times is that I was permabanned without clear reference to published rules other than his own rationalizations.

I want him to stop harassing me and attempting to character assassinate me in the manner of his post here. I want him to remove it.

3. The details of what should be removed or struck through are part of negotiation. If you'd like to propose changes to OP, feel free, even though your task may be complicated if he is not speaking to me directly. It occurs to me that I might agree to remove the post after a probation of a month or two to determine that Soul is able to keep some noninteraction commitment that he makes.

For resolution I want 1. All communications between Swamp and me to cease starting immediately and remain ceased indefinitely. 2. Each of us to not comment or post on forums the other mods. 3. Each of us to not create posts about the other. 4. For each of us to refrain from jumping in and trying to start interaction when we are discussing the other with other users.

4. Parts 1-3 can be deemed to have begun already, with the detail noted that either of us pinging or replying to the other, or commenting or posting in the other's forums, or creating posts mentioning or clearly referring to the other or the other's forums, would indicate a truce, requiring a new interaction ban to be agreed afterward. I would presume that, just as I would not make a generic reference to forums about Bible discrepancies or the like as it could be regarded as being a post "about" Soul, Soul would also not make a generic reference to forums about Christianity or the like as it could be regarded as a post "about" me and other mods.

5. Part 4 is more problematic because I haven't seen voluntary interaction ban to work when users remain free to speak to third parties about the other (i.e. to gossip). If I were to agree to that, nothing would stop me from defaming Soul across the board in various comments and regarding even the slightest effort from him to allude to correcting the record as a violation of the agreed ban where my hypothetical gossip would not be a violation. So I continue to insist that this be better stated. His comment itself can be regarded as jumping in and trying to start interaction with you when I was discussing him with you, so clearly the concept needs a start time rather than just a generic statement. Similarly, if in the future he were to claim that Reputation Campaign is defunct because no member had chosen to act on his deadline, that would be untoward and would be gossip that is easily contextualized by this conversation. I had thought he'd answered my first question, but it appears I need to repeat it: "Do you wish that I not interact with or talk about you and that you not interact with and talk about me; or do you wish to interact with and talk about me, knowing that I regard that as license to interact with and talk about you?" If he wants the freedom to talk about me without according me the freedom to contextualize what he says about me on the same platform, I find that a double standard. So I'd continue to suggest that part 4 should be something like "For each of us not to discuss the other recognizably with other users".

6. I don't see any spiritual benefit to anyone by any capitulation to his stated part 4, because it accords us both the right to unlimited gossip against each other. Perhaps though he merely means by "jumping in and trying to start interaction" that one is merely not to reply in the same thread. If he alludes to me speaking to a third party in a Conspiracies post, and then I ping the third party from a different post to provide context to his allusion, we both might be willing to agree to that. Then we are equally free to talk about each other and free to involve third parties in our discussions as long as the discussions remain on separate pages. But if he means more than this the problem I mentioned remains.

7. Enforcement of the ban has not been stated. It would be very simple for either of us to perceive that the other had broken the terms and to justify any other breaking on that perception. Presumably we'd need a clause that you'd be available to hear claims of violation indefinitely or for a set term, and that a perception of violation would not permit further violation by the other without your express ruling and perhaps a reopening of mediation.

At this point I'm blocking Swamp.

Having recognized that he can do this, he appears to be declining in his interest to continue to prosecute his requests of you. So I'll come to a brief review that seems to cover his stated points.

(1) You issue a ruling as to what either of us have done against Conspiracies rules with your recommendations as to discipline, allowing us to decide whether to accept the discipline as binding since we can only discipline ourselves. (2) I review OP and make initial voluntary edits; you include any other recommended edits in your ruling; and if Soul finds the edits incomplete he continues to negotiate in that process. (3) We deem his first terms agreed "1. All communications between Swamp and me to cease starting immediately and remain ceased indefinitely. 2. Each of us to not comment or post on forums the other mods. 3. Each of us to not create posts about the other." (4) For the moment, we deem my interpretation of his fourth point agreed (seeing as if he disagrees he can merely clarify in continuing negotation): "one is merely not to reply in the same thread. If he alludes to me speaking to a third party in a Conspiracies post, and then I ping the third party from a different post to provide context to his allusion, we both might be willing to agree to that. Then we are equally free to talk about each other and free to involve third parties in our discussions as long as the discussions remain on separate pages." (5) If Soul finds those interpretations incomplete, he continues to negotiate in the above process. (6) Any claims of ban violation would need to be handled, such as by you using the method above; if Soul wishes to make other plans in advance of this possibility, he would need to negotiate that too.

If this is agreeable and he gives no action for a reasonable time after your ruling and my edits, or if he continues to seek mediation within boundaries we all agree on, then we should be able to implement it. I would likely post comment the agreed details in a forum like CommunitiesConflict and/or SwampRangers, without pinging him, as to make such a post comment would still be within the terms stated, and he would be free to post comment separately to CommunitiesConflict or his own forum as well.

u/Thisisnotanexit, since Soul is now formally requesting interaction ban, I'm in general agreement as long as specifics are clearly defined, and so I will not ping him and will address my comments to you.

1. If nobody initiates the convening of the Reputation Campaign, then task 3 can be closed out as unnecessary. I would presume that Soul not publicly regard the Reputation Campaign as defunct since that's a forum that I mod and comments about it would be considered comments that reflect on me and the other mods. So I'll cover that in the details below.

As I said, all my contribs to Soul's forums (including those to the forums of an earlier account of his) were presented in good faith and with consideration of the rules as then stated; for instance, the first questions I asked in his new forum came before his "no apologetics or proselytizing" rule was stated. Most people regard the sharing of sincere questions as a means of growth rather than "endless religious arguments", and Soul himself used the technique of sincere questions when I first contributed there.

I am ok if Christians use the forums in a respectful manner and engage in reciprocal dialogue. With the Bible Oddities forum, I thought it was clear enough that the forum was not geared towards Christians initiating posts. Swamp tested the boundaries and posted anti Christian content, so I clarified. The rule on there is for Christians not to initiate a post. They are welcome to comment on a post providing they follow the other rules.

When I commented on a BibleOddities post with only a positive link, I was banned at moderator discretion for "griefing" the mod, so that showed me that Soul was not really thinking through his claim that Christians are welcome to comment providing they follow other rules. Since mod discretion is a rule, I pointed out that effectively means there are no rules because any rationalization in the mod's mind is treated as a new rule. I'm hopeful Soul realizes this in time after being shown it a few different ways, as it helps the forward progress he seeks.

The issue is that Swamp violated the rules that were in place, and engaged in what I view as griefing and harassing behavior as a result of his inability to live with the consequences of his behavior.

Like the above, on this issue I am solely responding to his statements about me for context, as I've stated I reserve the right to do. If we bypass the question of judging his own forums and stick to judging this one, that can be handled in the details of the voluntary interaction ban.

I view him as attempting to slander me with this post he made, and having attempted to manipulate me as a kind of punishment for having and enforcing healthy boundaries.

2. That's part of your judgment (TINAE) on the two of us, so I'm happy to discuss anything about that if specifics are presented.

If you find the comments about Swamps actions under the Ranger164 account, Swamp admits to circumventing a past ban I placed on him in another forum I modded, with intent to do what I view as harass me. Back then, I felt that Swamp was targeting me for harassment and trying to manipulate me. I view his actions as violating the requirements to remain in good standing on the platform and would like it addressed and action taken about it if deemed he was in violation to the requirements to remain in good standing on the platform.

That's a question for admin so perhaps neither you nor I should be involved in Soul's prosecution of that question.

I had told Swamp to stay off of the forums I mod and that I was willing to converse with him when I deemed he is capable of having a conversation.

That's not in evidence; what he told me five times is that I was permabanned without clear reference to published rules other than his own rationalizations.

I want him to stop harassing me and attempting to character assassinate me in the manner of his post here. I want him to remove it.

3. The details of what should be removed or struck through are part of negotiation. If you'd like to propose changes to OP, feel free, even though your task may be complicated if he is not speaking to me directly. It occurs to me that I might agree to remove the post after a probation of a month or two to determine that Soul is able to keep some noninteraction commitment that he makes.

For resolution I want 1. All communications between Swamp and me to cease starting immediately and remain ceased indefinitely. 2. Each of us to not comment or post on forums the other mods. 3. Each of us to not create posts about the other. 4. For each of us to refrain from jumping in and trying to start interaction when we are discussing the other with other users.

4. Parts 1-3 can be deemed to have begun already, with the detail noted that either of us pinging or replying to the other, or commenting or posting in the other's forums, or creating posts mentioning or clearly referring to the other or the other's forums, would indicate a truce, requiring a new interaction ban to be agreed afterward. I would presume that, just as I would not make a generic reference to forums about Bible discrepancies or the like as it could be regarded as being a post "about" Soul, Soul would also not make a generic reference to forums about Christianity or the like as it could be regarded as a post "about" me and other mods.

5. Part 4 is more problematic because I haven't seen voluntary interaction ban to work when users remain free to speak to third parties about the other (i.e. to gossip). If I were to agree to that, nothing would stop me from defaming Soul across the board in various comments and regarding even the slightest effort from him to allude to correcting the record as a violation of the agreed ban where my hypothetical gossip would not be a violation. So I continue to insist that this be better stated. His comment itself can be regarded as jumping in and trying to start interaction with you when I was discussing him with you, so clearly the concept needs a start time rather than just a generic statement. Similarly, if in the future he were to claim that Reputation Campaign is defunct because no member had chosen to act on his deadline, that would be untoward and would be gossip that is easily contextualized by this conversation. I had thought he'd answered my first question, but it appears I need to repeat it: "Do you wish that I not interact with or talk about you and that you not interact with and talk about me; or do you wish to interact with and talk about me, knowing that I regard that as license to interact with and talk about you?" If he wants the freedom to talk about me without according me the freedom to contextualize what he says about me on the same platform, I find that a double standard. So I'd continue to suggest that part 4 should be something like "For each of us not to discuss the other recognizably with other users".

6. I don't see any spiritual benefit to anyone by any capitulation to his stated part 4, because it accords us both the right to unlimited gossip against each other. Perhaps though he merely means by "jumping in and trying to start interaction" that one is merely not to reply in the same thread. If he alludes to me speaking to a third party in a Conspiracies post, and then I ping the third party from a different post to provide context to his allusion, we both might be willing to agree to that. Then we are equally free to talk about each other and free to involve third parties in our discussions as long as the discussions remain on separate pages. But if he means more than this the problem I mentioned remains.

7. Enforcement of the ban has not been stated. It would be very simple for either of us to perceive that the other had broken the terms and to justify any other breaking on that perception. Presumably we'd need a clause that you'd be available to hear claims of violation indefinitely or for a set term, and that a perception of violation would not permit further violation by the other without your express ruling and perhaps a reopening of mediation.

At this point I'm blocking Swamp.

Having recognized that he can do this, he appears to be declining in his interest to continue to prosecute his requests of you. So I'll come to a brief review that seems to cover his stated points.

(1) You issue a ruling as to what either of us have done against Conspiracies rules with your recommendations as to discipline, allowing us to decide whether to accept the discipline as binding since we can only discipline ourselves. (2) I review OP and make initial voluntary edits; you include any other recommended edits in your ruling; and if Soul finds the edits incomplete he continues to negotiate in that process. (3) We deem his first terms agreed "1. All communications between Swamp and me to cease starting immediately and remain ceased indefinitely. 2. Each of us to not comment or post on forums the other mods. 3. Each of us to not create posts about the other." (4) For the moment, we deem my interpretation of his fourth point agreed (seeing as if he disagrees he can merely clarify in continuing negotation): "one is merely not to reply in the same thread. If he alludes to me speaking to a third party in a Conspiracies post, and then I ping the third party from a different post to provide context to his allusion, we both might be willing to agree to that. Then we are equally free to talk about each other and free to involve third parties in our discussions as long as the discussions remain on separate pages." (5) If Soul finds those interpretations incomplete, he continues to negotiate in the above process. (6) Any claims of ban violation would need to be handled, such as by you using the method above; if Soul wishes to make other plans in advance of this possibility, he would need to negotiate that too.

If this is agreeable and he gives no action for a reasonable time after your ruling and my edits, or if he continues to seek mediation within boundaries we all agree on, then we should be able to implement it. I would likely post the agreed details in a forum like CommunitiesConflict and/or SwampRangers, without pinging him, as to make such a post would still be within the terms stated, and he would be free to post separately to CommunitiesConflict or his own forum as well.